The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 104
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    I think the look alike assault rifles are simply toys for stupid boys. Not needed for anything except a "man card".
    Nothing like stereotyping. So I guess my desire to own an AR-15 is... what? I'm certainly not looking for a "man card"... nor am I a "stupid boy". As much as calling pro-gun control folks uninformed and moronic makes the issue worse, so does essentially calling pro-gun people stupid and silly.

    Why do I need an AR-15? As I believe was stated before, I need it because... uh... well... none of your frakking business. the Constitution/Bill of Rights says I can so I shouldn't have to justify it to you or anyone else. I've shot one. I LOVED it! It's easy to handle, little recoil and accurate. The ammunition is also not terribly expensive (not as cheap as a .22 but cheaper than my .3030 lever-action rifle). If I had a coyote problem, I'd want to use one over a .22 (too small to get the job done) and my .3030 (while plenty big enough, the non-semi-automatic nature makes it less effective when it may require more than one shot to take down a fast moving target).

    Plenty of nonfacts written by the progun people as well.
    Like what? That the definition currently being used by our lawmakers to define an "assault weapon" is silly because the only difference is cosmetic changes like a collaspible stock or pistol grip? Or than many people (as shown even here) don't understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic? What facts have been thrown out by pro-gun folks that aren't facts??

    Fact is that it is already illegal to kill someone with a gun. Already illegal to lie on a background check to obtain a gun. Already illegal for some people (ie: felons) to own a gun. Already illegal to sell a gun illegally... to buy a gun illegally... to steal a gun... and to possess an automatic firing weapon (a "machine gun") without all the proper paperwork. Obviously we aren't enforcing the rules we already have. Why do we want more laws on the books that law-abiding citizens will, once again, be the only ones to conform to when we have criminals breaking laws we already have established and we aren't/can't enforce what we have?
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike


    5 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    So, yes, there are limits on Second Amendment rights. But when dealing with individual rights any restriction must pass some pretty stringent tests. First, there must be an over-riding governmental interest threatened by the behavior to be restricted. Second, the restriction must be tailored to that over-riding governmental interest. And Third the restriction must be the minimum restriction necessary to preserve that over-riding interest. In my opinion (and I'm an expert, too; the Supreme Court of the State of Texas says so ) the total bans proposed contravene Heller.
    Yes, I'm aware of your law background. But you didn't mention any of these stringent tests when you responded to the OP. You merely said that the question of the citizenry's need for a particular type of weapon is "irrelevant."

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    I don't grant the opinion of a UCLA law professor any more weight than I grant to a law professor from any other school who might have a countervailing opinion.
    WHERE he teaches was never the point. The point in mentioning UCLA at all was to indicate that as a law school professor at a school other than Bum-eff U, his opinion is probably of some merit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    The "need" standard does not exist in the words of the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court chooses to "read" one in then whose needs gets put first? The "needs" of the individual or the "needs" of the government?
    I already acknowledged the absence of the "need" standard in the Second Amendment. But the aforementioned good professor, in the paragraph I quoted in my earlier post, states that

    “In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in ‘common use,’” which is a common standard in jurisprudence, Winkler said. “A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use.”

    While I realize that “common use” and “need” may not be one and the same, there is certainly a link. Certain things tend to be in “common use” because there is a real or perceived need for them. So while a "need standard" obviously doesn't determine whether you HAVE Second Amendment rights, the needs of the citizenry, it seems to me, may absolutely be considered in SCOTUS decisions regarding LIMITS to those rights, which I believe was the point of the OP's question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    And, just to be complete, the Bill of Rights grants nothing to the persons living under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects, preserves, and defends rights that we already have. If you want to be deist then theses rights come from God. If you want to be secular they come from the place where all other "human rights" come from (where ever that might be). But "rights" are NEVER, under our system, a gift from the state.
    As important as that distinction may be in a courtroom or on a college campus, for the purposes of this discussion, it's mostly semantic nitpicking. But okay, the Second Amendment doesn't grant you the right to carry any weapon you like, and nor does it protect your right to carry any weapon you like. Of course that phrasing doesn't make sense either inasmuch as no amendment can protect a right that the Supreme Court has ruled is not a "right" at all.
    "Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business.”


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2006
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildBlue View Post
    This attitude is part of the problem.

    Like the OP, there are a LOT of people in the middle. People who support target shooting, hunting, and even home defense. HOWEVER, not being gun people themselves, most of what they know about guns is the outright, blatent disinformation trumpeted all over the news. Hell, if that's all I knew about guns, I'd think most gun owners were wild-eyed loons with a stash of bullets that can shoot through concrete walls and guns that fire 100 rounds in seconds. What rational person thinks that's a good idea?

    So, by refusing to discuss and educate in a rational and respectful manner, too many gun owners are allowing misinformation to form public opinion and get written into laws. I, personally, am very glad the OP is interested in learning more about the topic, and even more appreciative of the people who have given good, solid facts to dispell the made-up term "assault weapon".
    Thank you, WildBlue!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nevertoolate View Post
    Thank you, WildBlue!
    You don't endear yourself to anyone when you come here to question why we NEED any specific type of firearm.



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    “In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in ‘common use,’” which is a common standard in jurisprudence, Winkler said. “A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use.” .
    The very fact that Winkler mentions "machine guns" in any argument regarding semi automatic rifles COMPLETELY DESTROYS WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY HE MIGHT HAVE HAD.

    Neither he, nor you I bet, have an earthly clue about the differences between a machine gun and a rifle. You have no first hand experience with them so please STOP lecturing us about what you know NOTHING of.

    For your information, semi automatic RIFLES have been in common use by civilians since the beginning of the 20th freaking century.

    No wonder Alan Gura mops the courtroom floor with anti gun lawyers every chance he gets.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    42,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildBlue View Post
    This attitude is part of the problem.

    Like the OP, there are a LOT of people in the middle. People who support target shooting, hunting, and even home defense. HOWEVER, not being gun people themselves, most of what they know about guns is the outright, blatent disinformation trumpeted all over the news. Hell, if that's all I knew about guns, I'd think most gun owners were wild-eyed loons with a stash of bullets that can shoot through concrete walls and guns that fire 100 rounds in seconds. What rational person thinks that's a good idea?

    So, by refusing to discuss and educate in a rational and respectful manner, too many gun owners are allowing misinformation to form public opinion and get written into laws. I, personally, am very glad the OP is interested in learning more about the topic, and even more appreciative of the people who have given good, solid facts to dispell the made-up term "assault weapon".
    There are no "people in the middle" here.

    The fact is there is this one type of gun that is just like most every other gun out there, except it has a different color and some cosmetic differences.
    Now some want to make it be an evil tool, that only is used to do evil things, when it is just like any other such gun out there, like my old, probably made in 1920 semi-automatic one?

    I don't see any middle, but lack of facts, much misinformation by anyone that is trying to ban that one gun, that is really, once you have all the facts, just like any one other gun out there, just made out of lighter materials and colors than the previous ones, the same gun, a bit better, but working the same, for the same many purposes, that millions use appropriately, like they do any other gun and a few misuse, just like those few do any other gun.

    Anyone that is for banning that one gun is not in the middle, there is no middle here, they are misinformed.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    The very fact that Winkler mentions "machine guns" in any argument regarding semi automatic rifles COMPLETELY DESTROYS WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY HE MIGHT HAVE HAD.
    That is a completely illogical standard by which to judge someone's credibility. The man was merely making a point about "common use" and using obvious examples of weaponry (machine guns, shoulder-launched missiles) that are not in "common use."

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    Neither he, nor you I bet, have an earthly clue about the differences between a machine gun and a rifle. You have no first hand experience with them so please STOP lecturing us about what you know NOTHING of.

    For your information, semi automatic RIFLES have been in common use by civilians since the beginning of the 20th freaking century.
    Has anyone said otherwise? I know I haven't.

    Given my ignorance, it should be easy for you to refute something--anything--that I've said. And yet you continue to fail to do so. But I haven't given up on you yet!
    "Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business.”



  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    Assault weapon is a media-invented hysteria-driven term that has no meaning.
    Really? Hmph.
    So when I am at Gander Mountain looking in the gun case at what they have labeled 'AR15', what does 'AR' stand for?



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,821

    Default

    "ArmaLite Rifle". All the ArmaLite products have an AR designation, even the handguns. The "M" in "M16" refers to Model and the 16 refers to the designation of the rifle, meaning Model 16 rifle.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr. 17, 2002
    Location
    between the barn and the pond
    Posts
    14,495

    Default

    Aardvark Reducer.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Mar. 11, 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,626

    Default

    gads.

    LOL @ Aardvarks.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,976

    Default

    Maybe someone can answer why mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15? Personally, I think the bullets are the problem, not the guns.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Maybe someone can answer why mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15? Personally, I think the bullets are the problem, not the guns.
    Good luck controlling ammo. That will be fought even harder than gun control.



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caballero View Post
    Good luck controlling ammo. That will be fought even harder than gun control.
    I should have left it at why do mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15. Why do they?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    Really? Hmph.
    So when I am at Gander Mountain looking in the gun case at what they have labeled 'AR15', what does 'AR' stand for?
    Besides what Lex said, which is the correct origin of the model designation, AR15 has become a generic term to define any rifle based on the original Armalite pattern. Just like "1911" has become the generic name of any pistol made to the original Colt US Model of 1911.



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Maybe someone can answer why mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15? Personally, I think the bullets are the problem, not the guns.
    The AR-15 is available to order or buy outright at most, if not all, gun shops because it's considered "The American Rifle". Every single person I know who is into rifle shooting - target or hunting - owns one and has it tricked out to look like something from the latest Call of Duty videogame.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar. 11, 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    5,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I should have left it at why do mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15. Why do they?
    I don't know (really don't)-maybe it ties in with their "Rambo" vision of themselves incurring their wrath on the enemy? It's certainly been modeled over and over in movies and video games.



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I should have left it at why do mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15. Why do they?
    Because they look bad ass. Kinda of like the "man card". Did no one see Bushmasters website which has since been taken down?

    caballero, I own several guns. I can say idiot boys because I have family and friends that own AR 15's. I've held them in my hands and shot them as well as my DH, it most certainly is about feeling bad ass. You are being disingenuous by claiming otherwise.



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboymom View Post
    I don't know (really don't)-maybe it ties in with their "Rambo" vision of themselves incurring their wrath on the enemy? It's certainly been modeled over and over in movies and video games.
    It's really a simple matter of availability. As I said above, you can get it and accessories for it VERY easily and you could just buy a tricked-out rifle with all sorts of enhancements if you went through the private seller market. Here in VA, a lot of guys do that and there's no oversight or background checks unless they go through a licensed dealer, which most won't on principle because they see it as an affront to the 2nd amendment.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    I've held them in my hands and shot them as well as my DH, it most certainly is about feeling bad ass. You are being disingenuous by claiming otherwise.
    Don't project your emotions and feelings on others. You have no idea why I own one or how I feel about it when I shoot it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 01:20 PM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 12:18 PM
  3. "Brutal Horse-Mounted Assault" on Portland "Occupiers"
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: Nov. 20, 2011, 01:38 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec. 11, 2010, 09:08 PM
  5. Psycho Arrested in an Assault by Horse...
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Aug. 13, 2009, 08:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness